Brave New World for Built Green in Colorado

"Opportunity's favorite disguise is trouble."
- Mason Cooler

"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
- Howard Ruff

Last spring, your Built Green Colorado program went into the shop L for it's first major overhaul since it hit the road in December 1995. Back on the road now, it contains two substantially different elements.

First, the Denver program came into line with the national trend to identify different values with different green building measures. It now includes a weighting system. So while light-colored paint and a programmable thermostat with a "fan only" switch will still earn you one point each, 58 different measures will earn you five points or more apiece. Each home now needs 70 points to qualify as Built Green.

Second, starting this month, Built Green homes will provide buyers with a modestly higher standard of performance. The minimum energy efficiency threshold for each Built Green home must be 15 percent higher than last year's minimum threshold. So it's a little more demanding to be a Colorado Built Green builder.

Wait: isn't this a voluntary program'? Why are we ratcheting up our own program in the teeth of a market slowdown'?

The energy code driver

There are two reasons why the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code replaced the 1993 Model Energy Code as the minimum energy threshold for participation as a Built Green builder in Colorado.

First, a growing number of code jurisdictions around Colorado have either adopted or are in the process of adopting the IECC standard. Among the former are Longmont, Boulder, Cherry Hills Village, Jefferson County, Mesa County and Greenwood Village. Jurisdictions in the process of adopting the code include Parker, Glenwood Springs, Summit County and Denver. Among the many others reportedly planning to introduce the IECC in 2002 are Arvada, Aspen, Lafayette, Telluride, Commerce City, Westminster, Thornton and possibly Aurora. (Additionally, the minimum energy standard for Stapleton builders is the 2000 IECC. )

Second, given these actions and this momentum by code officials, the Denver HBA's Board of Directors voted last summer increase its minimum energy standard in order to maintain a position of leadership. It wouldn't do to have the entry level set below the code minimum in a growing number of jurisdictions.

IECC basics

Okay, you're on the sidelines trying to figure out the best way to meet the 2000 IECC threshold required for either Built Green or the code coming to a neighbor hood near you. Remember: this means increasing efficiency by 15 percent over an MEC 1993 home. You have three options for getting there.

The prescriptive path. This requires R-38 ceilings and cantilevers, R- 18 walls, R-2.85 windows (U-0.35), R-10 basements, and R-20 crawlspace and garage ceilings. No exceptions allowed, though there is some wiggle room in the fine print. Note that if you install more windows than 15 percent of your wall area, you have to comply using another package.

The trade-off path. Do most of the above. Then do a little more of one energy feature and a little less of other. Or simply install fewer windows than allowed, which enables you to either reduce the window or wall R-values.

The performance option. Also called "systems analysis," think home energy rating. A rating allows you to take credit for features ignored by the first two compliance paths. You can get cost-effective credit for tighter construction, a better water heater, tight ductwork and good building orientation. You can also lose a little credit for very leaky ductwork and poor building orientation.

In Longmont-the first jurisdiction to pass the IECC-builders don't comply using the prescriptive path because it of fers the least flexibility and can actually cost the most. Most go the trade-off method, though a number use the systems path (E-Star rating).

Entry-level "trade-off" package

You'll have to insulate all basements, crawlspaces and slab edges. Then your most cost-effective path is to slightly reduce your window area. Next, for your basement select a vinyl instead of the typ ical metal window; this improves the lowest performing single component in the building and adds value when the basement is eventually finished. If you take these steps, you may be able to reduce your wall R-value to R-16 (R-13 cavity plus R-3 foam) or R-15. Alternatively, you might downshift from low-e to standard double-glazing. But compliance going this route isn't assured.

If your market sector doesn't allow you to reduce window area, then upgrade to low-e glass as standard. Pick glazing with a low solar heat gain coefficient; it's marked on every window's sticker. (Lowe windows NFRC rated at u=0.37 or lower gain 6 points on the Built Green Checklist.) Then sell six benefits: better comfort, reduced condensation, less fabric fading, lower energy bills, better resale value once low-e becomes standard; plus low-e either enables downsized air conditioning (saves at least one ton) or makes doing without AC more viable.

If you install a high ratio of windows to wall area, you will probably need to beef up your wall. A combination of advanced framing plus foam sheathing is the most cost-effective method for increasing wall R-value. (More on this topic next month.)

A better "systems" package

The systems compliance path to meeting the IECC allows credit for items other than insulation, windows and furnace efficiency. Since tighter construction is the cost-effective way to substantially improve performance, start there. If you tighten the building such that it tests at 0.35 air-changes per hour, you also earn your most cost-effective improvement on the Built Green Checklist.

Buy a better water heater, and wrap the tank and first three feet of pipes with extra insulation. Buy a water heater that isn't prone to back-drafting and spillage of combustion gases and you'll also earn Built Green air-quality points.

Design and install simplified return-air ductwork. This saves energy, tightens ductwork by about 60 percent and drastically reduces combustion safety problems in basements. Expect either a break-even proposition or to save a little on initial cost.

And it's hard not to recommend low-e windows, even though they save less through the systems path than through the trade-off method. Remember those benefits. To achieve the IECC 2000's "systems threshold" of 83 on the E-Star rating scale, you'll still have to insulate your foundation components.

Cost vs. quality

Experience shows a strong tendency on the part of many builders to resist participation in the Built Green program due to exclusive focus on initial cost. But that cost issue needs to be balanced against associated benefits. Consider just three.

First, the cost of a carefully selected energy package can be paid for by the associated savings, from day one of ownership by a buyer.

Second, selecting some measures rewarded on the Built Green Checklist can reduce callbacks. Highest on the list would be design of ductwork based on calculations, plus installation of sealed ductwork, in combination with low-c windows. These are superior ways to overcome comfort problems on second floors and in bedrooms over garages.

Third, selecting some measures can reduce liability. The best examples are selection of combustion appliances that either reduce or eliminate the possibility of combustion gases entering the home.

Then of course, there other issues relating to shifting buyer preferences, as laid out recently in Professional Builder magazine.

Professional Builder's Green Building survey

In its second annual "State of Green Building" survey of 300 consumers on the subject of green building, Professional Builder magazine reported that "saving energy, using fewer resources and improving indoor air quality continue to gain importance. Compared with last year, consumers are willing to pay significantly more up front for energy-efficiency upgrades that will reduce their monthly bills, and they're willing to accept a longer payback period for those upgrades."

The three energy upgrades buyers wanted in new homes were insulation levels higher than code (83 percent); high-efficiency furnaces, boilers and water heaters (83 percent); and passive solar heating design (76 percent). About one-third of buyers, interviewed during August and early September, said they were willing to spend more than $3,000 for these upgrades. (The lower residential energy prices experienced since late summer might take some of the height off these figures.)

Not to be overlooked is this pointed caveat by Professional Builder writer Jennifer Roberts: "Although a survey respondent's good intentions aren't necessarily perfectly aligned with a buyer's real-world actions, a year-to-year comparison of the data shows distinct trends. More people want to save energy, and more people are willing to spend more money for energy-efficient home upgrades."

Roberts wrote that "builders continue to significantly underestimate the value customers place on a healthy environment and a healthy home." Good indoor air quality ranked second only to energy upgrades with consumers.

Year after year, Professional Builder found that all of the green upgrades were more important to consumers this year compared to last. Potential buyers wanted more engineered wood products (62 percent vs. 50 percent), use of sustainably harvested lumber (61 percent vs. 46 percent) and a home built without using oldgrowth lumber (80 percent vs. 64 percent).

Roberts' conclusion is worth remembering: "The survey trends from last to this year point to plenty of opportunities for savvy home builders to satisfy unmet consumer demand for sustainably built homes."

Steve Andrews consults with builders for E-Star Colorado and writes on energy issues (sbandrews@att.net). E-Star (www.e-star.com), is a nonprofit home energy rating system that works with both new and existing homes statewide.

2008 Built Green Colorado

Home Builders Association of Metro Denver, 9033 E. Easter Place, Suite 200, Centennial, CO 80112
(303) 778-1400 fax: (303) 733-9440  info@builtgreen.org

Last Updated: 10/05/2007